4.5 Article

Efficacy of a novel device for cryoprevention of oral mucositis: a randomized, blinded, multicenter, parallel group, phase 3 trial

期刊

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 57, 期 2, 页码 191-197

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41409-021-01512-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. Sweden's innovation agency-Vinnova [2016-04171]
  2. Vinnova [2016-04171] Funding Source: Vinnova

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cryoprevention using ice is an effective strategy to prevent chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis, but may cause adverse reactions. In this study, ice and a novel intraoral cooling device were found to be equally effective for the entire study population, but the cooling device showed better results in reducing oral mucositis scores for the lymphoma group.
Cryoprevention (CP) using ice (IC) is an effective strategy to prevent chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis (OM). However, the use of IC may cause adverse reactions and requires water of safe quality to minimize risk of serious infections. This randomized, blinded, parallel group, phase 3 trial was conducted in five Scandinavian centers. Eligible patients were diagnosed with multiple myeloma or lymphoma, scheduled to receive conditioning with high-dose chemotherapy prior to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Patients were assigned to cooling with IC or a novel intraoral cooling device (ICD). The primary outcome was the highest OM score during the study period, expressed as peak value on the Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale (OMAS-total). When the entire study population (n = 172) was analyzed for peak OMAS-total, the two cooling methods were equally effective. However, when the lymphoma group was analyzed separately, the ICD significantly reduced the peak OMAS-total score to a greater extent compared to IC (x +/- SD; 1.77 +/- 1.59 vs. 3.08 +/- 1.50; p = 0.047). Combined with existing evidence, the results of the present trial confirm that CP is an effective method to prevent OM. ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT03203733.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据